Societal security is a concept developed by the Copenhagen School of security studies that focuses on the ability of a society to persist in its essential character. It was developed in 1990s in the context of the end of the Cold War and moves towards further integration in the European Union. This paradigm de-emphasizes the role of state power in guaranteeing security by confronting threats, highlighting instead questions of community identity and social dynamics.
The end of the Cold War prompted scholars to rethink the paradigm of security independently from the state and the military.[1] In Europe, the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of new states and sustained efforts to pursue integration of the European Union. The new order called for a rethinking of European security which challenged classic understandings of it as something that took place between states. The move towards an EU security was, thus, closely articulated around questions of EU identity, free movement of people and borders. The concept of societal security, developed by scholars associated with the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, is situated within this context.[2] Societal security relates to: "the ability of a society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual threats."[3] The Securitization Theory When it comes to researching the EU's securitization of the Belt and Road initiative, the acclaimed Copenhagen School provides some useful insights and an analytical methodology. According to the theory's primary proponents, governments may portray any problem as an existential danger to a selected referent object, justifying the deployment of extreme means to deal with it (Buzan et al. 1998). Scholars have identified the European Union (EU) as the securitizing actor, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as the referent object, and the European Union and China as the functional actors. According to Buzan et al. (1998), the issue at hand becomes a security concern the moment it is labelled as one. Other academics, however, such as Balzacq (2011), have elucidated the interplay between the securitizing actor and the acceptability by the audience, which is crucial for securitisation to occur effectively. Inadequate public support and approval can result in a stalled securitization legislation, as has happened before in the EU with other initiatives (Sjöstedt, 2019). Because security is such a broad notion, it is difficult to pin down exactly what constitutes a danger to it. However, Hough (2004) defines a security threat as anything that threatens the safety of a people or limits the government's ability to make policy decisions. In light of the Copenhagen School's concept of securitization, virtually any problem may constitute an existential threat, expanding the scope of national security beyond traditional concerns about military danger (Buzan et al. 1998). This might provide a new theoretical foundation for security studies by taking into account potential risks to societal security, such as those that could compromise the identity of a society or community (Biba, 2018). Despite the ostensible evasiveness of the notion, identity can function as a referent object to be defended and securitized against a perceived threat (Balzacq, 2010). A 'we feeling' and an exceptionalism that broadens the notion that the nation is special, which makes it vulnerable to protection, give birth to these social or identity concerns (Hough, 2004). In reality, there is widespread agreement that security concerns are inherently subjective and rely on the securitizing actor. According to Katzenstein (1996), the actor's behaviour is often a self-reinforcing projection of the persona they believe society wants them to have, supported by the rhetorical strategies they use to cultivate that persona. Because it conforms to the typical behaviour, which is rooted in socially accepted speaking actions, the established routines of security apparatus and danger perception are likely to be repeated. Therefore, the identity of a state is crucial to comprehending its foreign policy, and rhetoric plays a significant part in this process. Some authors, like Debrix (2015), who cite Foucault, argue that the labels we use to categorise and describe the world influence what we learn and how we think about it conceptually and discursively. They argue, however, that the information that is so prevalent in our society is inextricably linked to the dominant power structures that shape both the discourse and the dominant narrative (Debrix 2015). Individuality and subjectivity may be produced through the application of binary oppositions, such as good and evil or us and them (Biba, 2018). A cultural identity, including all its attendant policies, social conventions, and conceptualizations, is formed by these exclusions (Martínez-Galán, 2020). As a result, "performative" is a good way to describe language, as it is the means by which reality is built through spoken actions (Angermüller et al., 2014). To those who take a reflective approach to international relations, discourse is the fundamental analytical building block. Scholars may use this approach to examine the political discourse, trace its development as a political representation, and track its following performative materializations. The empirical study by Léonard and Kaunert (2011) is one of the first to examine how the public perceives securitization. This research explicitly examines the hypothesis that audiences that are exposed to a wide variety of perspectives within a given discursive space are more likely to accept processes of securitization.
The nation-state in Western and Eastern Europe
In 'Identity, Migration, and the New Security Agenda in Europe', Waver notes the emergence of different conceptions of the nation-state, and further establishes a distinction between Western and Eastern Europe. In the West, a “decoupling of state and nation” takes place, as member states, by seeking more integration, accept to relinquish some of their sovereignty. This move towards a “post-sovereign” nation-state is due to “internationalization and Europeanization” processes, as international institutions assume increased influence over domestic affairs.[4] Subsequently, communities, perceiving their identities to be threatened by this integration, can no longer call upon the state to protect them. A duality occurs between the security needs of the state and of society, where “state security has sovereignty as its ultimate criterion, and societal security has identity”.[4] In the East, the emergence of new states, formed after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, leads to more traditional attempts at merging the nation and the state; thus, conflicts arise when the coupling cannot be done (i.e. Yugoslavia).[5]
Aspects of societal security
In 'Security: a new framework for analysis', Busan et al. formalize their broader understanding of security by introducing five sectors, each governed by “distinctive characteristics and dynamics”, and conceptualized around particular referent objects and actors (i.e. military, environmental, economic, societal and political). Societal security is about the survival of a community as a cohesive unit; its referent object is ”large scale collective identities that can function independent of the state.”[6]
Societal insecurities arise when “a society fears it would not be able to live as itself”, and stem from:
migration: the influx of people will “overrun or dilute” a group’s identity e.g. the need to define Britishness;
vertical competition: the integration of a group within a broader organization e.g. Euroscepticism with regards to EU integration, national-separatist claims; and,
horizontal competition: group is forced to integrate more influential identities within their own e.g. France’s cultural exception defending itself against American influences.[7]
Societal security is not tied to a territory, as is state security, e.g. the territory of the Kurds, where security matters of state and society widely diverge and enter into conflict.[8]
Sociological perspective
From a sociological perspective, the "societal security" concept embodies a certain view of security. It regards security as an "independent phenomenon": thus, societal security is neither a threat nor an opportunity; it is a center and base, upon which the reliability and certainty of collective life could be constructed. It rereads of security from "social" perspective, meaning that security is seen as based on collective life–the life of common people–instead of looking at differences and insisting on disagreement between groups and states that is a key factor in determining threats and distinguishing friends from foes. It views security as "social phenomenon", which does not need military weapons and soft power solutions. In other words, societal security does not integrate with power and remain by converting links to social capitals.[clarification needed] Finally, threats and opportunities could be considered as deterrent or impeller factors.
So the final goal of societal security is comfort and understanding the beauty of collective life – not an interest for government, not eliminating enemies, not confronting perceived threats to the nation.[9] Securitization fits into its foreign policy by examining its history and earlier precedents (Braga & Sangar, 2020). Since securitization is predicated on speech actions and utterances in discourse, it is also important to think about a critical discourse analysis, the primary methodological instrument for this field. Several themes will emerge from deconstructing this discourse into its component parts, so these themes will be evaluated critically to assess their role in the securitisation act, taking into account the intended audience and the impact on legitimacy (Chu & Muneeza 2019). In addition, the securitisation theory will be implemented when the discourse analysis is finished. This way, insightful results that address the research question will be derived. As such, a review of EU and the Chinese government's official statements about the BRI from 2013 to 2021 was conducted. English-language texts were chosen for study because previous research has revealed that Chinese players hope to influence European beliefs through them (Pan 2012; Weil and Jing 2012; Weil and Munteanu 2020). The selection of original materials was done with great care to verify the quality and dependability of the data. This research utilised documents from both domestic and international EU and Chinese political players, including government and state agencies, state-driven media, and think tanks in both China and EU countries (Rogelja, 2019).
What does securitization do?
A community, acting upon these insecurities, will try to present an issue as being an existential threat endangering the survival of a group. Thus, securitization is a tactic that seeks to categorise an issue as an existential threat, for its prioritisation over any other issue (i.e. “absolute priority”). Addressing any other issue would be pointless, if the existential threat is not addressed first. Thereby, securitization justifies and legitimises the use of exceptional measures.
“’Security’ is the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics. Securitization can thus be seen as a more extreme version of politicization.”[10]
“…when a securitizing actor uses a rhetoric of existential threat and thereby takes an issue out of what under those conditions is “normal politics,” we have a case of securitization.”[11]
Making use of language theory, securitization is conceptualised as a speech-act, and as such, relies on linguistic techniques and audiences. The message has to be properly delivered (e.g. using appropriate vocabulary, framing, diffusion channels, etc.) for an audience to accept it.
“Thus, the exact definition and criteria of securitization is constituted by the intersubjective establishment of an existential threat with a saliency sufficient to have substantial political effects.”[12]
Not all speech-acts are successful. They have to be uttered by those holding enough social capital to be heard and taken seriously. Successful societal security speech-acts can only be uttered by the elites of specific communities. Because of their existential nature, only a few claims can be successfully securitised.
Securitization fits into its foreign policy by examining its history and earlier precedents (Braga & Sangar, 2020). Since securitization is predicated on speech actions and utterances in discourse, it is also important to think about a critical discourse analysis, the primary methodological instrument for this field. Several themes will emerge from deconstructing this discourse into its component parts, so these themes will be evaluated critically to assess their role in the securitisation act, taking into account the intended audience and the impact on legitimacy (Chu & Muneeza 2019). In addition, the securitisation theory will be implemented when the discourse analysis is finished. This way, insightful results that address the research question will be derived. As such, a review of EU and the Chinese government's official statements about the BRI from 2013 to 2021 was conducted. English-language texts were chosen for study because previous research has revealed that Chinese players hope to influence European beliefs through them (Pan 2012; Weil and Jing 2012; Weil and Munteanu 2020). The selection of original materials was done with great care to verify the quality and dependability of the data. This research utilised documents from both domestic and international EU and Chinese political players, including government and state agencies, state-driven media, and think tanks in both China and EU countries (Rogelja, 2019). The qualitative discourse study involved extensive source data collecting, including documents from state institutions, papers from think tanks, and joint remarks from EU and Chinese government leaders. NVivo was used to organise them into relevant categories.
Criticism
The concept of societal security developed by the Copenhagen School has been subject to several academic criticisms.[13] Theiler argues that when discussing societal security there is a tendency to reify societies as independent social agents. Theiler also states that a too vague definition of identity is deployed when discussing the concept and there is a failure to 'demonstrate sufficiently that social security matters to individuals'.[14]
Furthermore, understanding exceptional measures as extremely politicised responses and/or measures outside politics is problematic, as it implies different frames of action within a large scale of possible. What constitutes “normal politics”? Are these measures outside or within the frame of the law? Do they apply to everyone or only to a specific group? Do they hold policy implication? These questions are particularly relevant to appreciate the types of security measures a securitization through societal security could bring, i.e. what could a community do by securitising identities? Hence, this vagueness could indicate a decision not to engage with debates around exceptional measures or the limits of conceptualising the modus operandi of security measures outside of the state.[citation needed] The exhibition of securitization may be deemed successful when the audience embraces this positioning which, then, would warrant 'emergency measures' (Buzan et al., 1998). When a matter is successfully constructed or framed as a security issue, according to the Copenhagen School, the particular matter is given precedence. This essentially implies that the matter receives disproportionate time, resources and attention. Moreover, it also grants the actor assigned to neutralize the threat, the necessary competencies to act swiftly (Chu & Muneeza 2019). Therefore, when an issue is successfully securitized, it transfers from the sphere of normal politics into the sphere of emergency politics. Here, the issue is tackled by sanctioning drastic measures that circumvent the conventional rules and guidelines of policymaking (Taureck, 2006). Securitization theory strongly relies on speech acts structured to respond to specific societal problems. There is a strong emphasis on the consideration of the language aspect as a crucial discourse structure in finding solutions to issues (Buzan et al. 1998). A comprehensive linguistic analysis is therefore necessary to arrive at the core of the issue and determine the discursive themes that reinforce the existing power structures. Although rationalist theories of International Relations have often disregarded the linguistic component and orientated instead towards material resources or institutions, several poststructuralist authors provide analytical tools to examine the speech acts. In quoting Foucault, authors such as Debrix (2015) argue that our conceptual and discursive representations of the world are wholly dependent on labels that form our knowledge and comprehension of the world. The chief interaction in the securitization process transpires between the securitizing actor, which through a securitization move frames a specific issue as a threat (the referent subject) and the group towards which the move is targeted (the referent object). Securitization theory does not clearly stipulate the profile of a securitizing actor. However, there seems to be a broad consensus that the securitizing actor must carry some degree of discursive authority and represent a larger group or collective (e.g. a state, political party, or rebel faction) (Sjöstedt, 2017). Thus, although in principle no one is barred from acting as a securitizing actor, Security studies maintains a strong bias towards the elite political class and security experts. Consequently, securitization is widely viewed to be an intentional, pre-meditated, elite driven process. In this regard, the theory presupposes a level of centralization, entailing that merely actors in high and distinguished positions in society can produce legitimate security discourses (Karyotis, 2011). Thus, certain actors enjoy more privileges than others as it pertains to speech and constructing security concerns (Buzan & Waever, 2003). The audience is also an important component of the securitization theory. In this respect, securitization is assumed to be an intersubjective process that depends on the audience’s acceptance. Therefore, if both the securitization actor and the audience recognize a subjective securitizing move, it turns into an intersubjective securitized matter (Sjöstedt, 2017).
Related Research Articles
Security is protection from, or resilience against, potential harm caused by others, by restraining the freedom of others to act. Beneficiaries of security may be of persons and social groups, objects and institutions, ecosystems or any other entity or phenomenon vulnerable to unwanted change.
In the philosophy of language and linguistics, speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information but performs an action as well. For example, the phrase "I would like the kimchi; could you please pass it to me?" is considered a speech act as it expresses the speaker's desire to acquire the kimchi, as well as presenting a request that someone pass the kimchi to them. According to Kent Bach, "almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience". The contemporary use of the term goes back to J. L. Austin's development of performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Speech acts serve their function once they are said or communicated. These are commonly taken to include acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering, answering, requesting, complaining, warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice. CDA combines critique of discourse and explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a basis for action to change that existing reality in particular respects. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use. In this sense, it differs from discourse analysis in that it highlights issues of power asymmetries, manipulation, exploitation, and structural inequities in domains such as education, media, and politics.
International security is a term which refers to the measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.
Barry Gordon Buzan, FBA, FAcSS is a British political scientist. He is an Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and a honorary professor at the University of Copenhagen and Jilin University. Until 2012 he was Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at the LSE. Buzan sketched the Regional Security Complex Theory and is therefore together with Ole Wæver a central figure of the Copenhagen School.
Ole Wæver is a professor of international relations at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. He has published and broadcast extensively in the field of international relations, and is one of the main architects of the so-called Copenhagen School in International Relations.
Securitization in international relations and national politics is the process of state actors transforming subjects from regular political issues into matters of "security": thus enabling extraordinary means to be used in the name of security. Issues that become securitized do not necessarily represent issues that are essential to the objective survival of a state, but rather represent issues where someone was successful in constructing an issue into an existential problem.
The Copenhagen School of security studies is a school of academic thought with its origins in international relations theorist Barry Buzan's book People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, first published in 1983. The Copenhagen School places particular emphasis on the non-military aspects of security, representing a shift away from traditional security studies. Theorists associated with the school include Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. Many of the school's members worked at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, from which its name originates.
Vivien A. Schmidt is an American academic of political science and international relations. At Boston University, she is the Jean Monnet Chair of European Integration Professor of International Relations in the Pardee School of Global Studies, and Professor of Political Science. She is known for her work on political economy, policy analysis, democratic theory, and new institutionalism. She is a 2018 recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and has been named a Chevalier in the French Legion of Honor.
Thomas Diez is a German professor of Political Science and International Relations at the Institute for Political Science, University of Tübingen. He was formerly Professor of International Relations Theory in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Birmingham, where he was Head of department from 2005 to 2008. Diez earned his PhD at the University of Mannheim. He was formerly a Research Fellow at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute where he worked with Barry Buzan and Ole Waever. He studies international relations theory, European integration and conflict transformation and is best known for his contributions to the debate on the European Union's normative power. Books he has edited or co-edited include The EU and the Cyprus Conflict: Modern Conflict, Postmodern Union, European Integration Theory and The European Union and Border Conflicts, Cyprus: A Conflict at the Crossroads and An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes.
Jacobus Hubertus "Jaap" de Wilde is a Dutch academic. A native of Zuidlaren, he is a Professor of International Relations and Security Studies at the University of Groningen since 2007. He headed the department of International Relations between 2008 and 2012. From 2001 to 2007 he was professor in European Security Studies at the Department of Political Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, and from 1995–2007 he was senior research fellow in European Studies and IR Theory at the Centre for European Studies (CES), University of Twente. From 1993–1995 he worked at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI).
Security Dialogue is a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes scholarly articles which combine contemporary theoretical analysis with challenges to public policy across a wide-ranging field of security studies. The journal is owned by the Peace Research Institute Oslo which also hosts the editorial office. As of 1 October 2015 Mark B. Salter is the editor-in-chief. Marit Moe-Pryce has been the managing editor of the journal since 2004. Current associate editors are Emily Gilbert, Jairus V. Grove, Jana Hönke, Doerthe Rosenow, Anna Stavrianakis, and Maria Stern.
Security: A New Framework for Analysis is a book by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde. It is considered to be the leading text outlining the views of the Copenhagen School of security studies. The work addresses two important conceptual developments: Buzan's notion of sectoral analysis and Ole Wæver's concept of 'securitization'. The book argues for an intersubjective understanding of security and that our understanding of security should be widened to include issues such as environmental security and threats to identity.
Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe is a 1993 book by Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup and Pierre Lemaitre. The work is significant to the Copenhagen School of security studies as an early collaboration between Ole Waever and Barry Buzan and for weakening the state-centrism of early securitization theory.
The European Security Order Recast: Scenarios for the Post-Cold War Era was a 1990 international relations book by Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup, Pierre Lemaitre, Elzbieta Tromer and Ole Waever. The book focused on structural transformations in European security at the end of the Cold War and argues that concerns about traditional military security would decrease and that the issue of societal security would become more important in the future. The work is considered to be belong to the Copenhagen School of security studies.
Regional security complex theory (RSCT) is a theory of international relations developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver and advanced in their 2003 work Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Buzan and Wæver are perhaps best known as the key figures behind the influential Copenhagen School of security studies, in which the main principle is examining security as a social construct (see also securitization and constructivism).
International political sociology (IPS) is an interdisciplinary field and set of approaches at the crossroads of international relations theory and other disciplines such as sociology, geography and anthropology. It is structured around initiatives such as the journal International Political Sociology and the network Doingips, as well as scholars such as Didier Bigo, Anastassia Tsoukala, Ayse Ceyhan or Elspeth Guild.
Feminist security studies is a subdiscipline of security studies that draws attention to gendered dimensions of security.
Climate security is a political and policy framework that looks at the impacts of climate on security. Climate security often refers to the national and international security risks induced, directly or indirectly, by changes in climate patterns. It is a concept that summons the idea that climate-related change amplifies existing risks in society that endangers the security of humans, ecosystems, economy, infrastructure and societies. Climate-related security risks have far-reaching implications for the way the world manages peace and security. Climate actions to adapt and mitigate impacts can also have a negative effect on human security if mishandled.
Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran is a 2013 book by Alam Saleh in which the author examines inter-ethnic tension and the politicization of ethnic identity in Iran. He suggests that problems with ethnicity and nationality in Iran, as in other countries of the Middle East, has not been so much the result of ethnic identity formation, but the product of the securitization of ethnic issues. The book has received positive reviews in the Middle East Journal, Review of Middle East Studies, the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, and Nations and Nationalism.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
